Source engine and rpg

so i was playing Fallout 3, and i was talking to these faces with barely any expression and definitely didn't look good. suddenly i found myself asking -- why isn't any rpg developer using Source engine? it's a highly capable engine that scales very well with all sorts of rigs, it has great modding potential, and most important for the genre, it has great facial expression rendering. to me, it really seems to be the god-sent engine to build a great, immersive rpg. Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines is ( if i'm not mistaken ) the only Source rpg, and even with all those performance issues that Troika didn't iron out, it's still easily one of the greatest rpg ever made.my point being, Source can, and should, be a great asset to the genre. when would rpg devs start taking facial expression rendering seriously? dialogue is THE integral part of crpgs, and no amount of good writing could excuse all the wooden faces from start to end. and it's not just Fallout 3 either....Aurora engine on The Witcher is even worse. i don't know about you, but i'm looking forward to these devs putting their talent and effort on an engine that really allows them to shine.Source engine and rpg
Thats funny that you mentioned this man, because i was wondering the same thing a few months ago.An RPG with the source engine would almost for sure get my money (as i love rpgs and the source engine.While i was thinking about a source rpg i was thinking an rpg with the crysis engine would be amazing to. Source engine and rpg
Source is a little dated.
Well, there are really only four or five RPG developers left. Bethesda uses an engine that is tailor made for the huge environments seen in their games (which we've never seen Source handle), so it makes sense that they wouldn't use Source.BioWare has its own engine, which again is tailor made for their needs, but they also used UE3. I think UE3 was used because it gets the 360 guys hot under the collar, while Source does not.CD Projekt has a longstanding relationship with BioWare, which means they could jump straight into development on The Witcher. Even if one set of tools is better, it's not necessarily the better tool to use if you're super-familiar with another set of tools.And Obsidian uses a modified version of BioWare's engine, which makes sense again given the longstanding partnership with the two companies, and I believe Obsidian is moving up to UE3 for its upcoming games, which again will simply sell units.I can't really think of any other major RPG developers who have a reason to use Source. Those Gothic guys I guess, but again, they need huge open worlds. Can Source handle that? hedgehogenstein wonders...I don't approve of companies not using Source, since I agree with your points, and Bloodlines is awesome, but I understand why companies aren't using Source. It's not tailor-made for particular tasks (and most RPGs are quite specialized, requiring specialized tools) and, as good as it looks, it's old now. UE3 can still get people hot and bothered. Source just can't.
There's simply a better engine out, and that's the Unreal engine. Just about every game out uses it, especially RPGs.
[QUOTE=''GodLovesDead'']Source is a little dated.[/QUOTE]for the advanced facial animation system alone i would put it ahead of other graphic engines ( within the rpg genre ). it's really an invaluable asset to have, something that allows the devs to create highly memorable npcs -- and i can't even begin to describe how important this is for the genre. Source is definitely outdated in terms of raw graphical power, but look at it another way -- are the rpgs with all the new bells and whistles more immersive? imo they aren't.
[QUOTE=''zaku101'']There's simply a better engine out, and that's the Unreal engine. Just about every game out uses it, especially RPGs.[/QUOTE]What are all the rpgs that have used the Unreal engine? I remember reading awhile back that Lost Odyssey on the 360 was the first rpg to use the Unreal 3 engine.